DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Examiner notes the following amendments made to the claims:
Claims 1-3 and 9-13 amended
Claims 5, 7, and 8 cancelled
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, the amendments made to alter the claim language to state that the composition “consists essentially” of the claimed elements in combination with the provided arguments does not persuade examiner that the claims, as currently worded, overcome the prior art. Specifically, claim 1 is amended to specify that the solid electrolyte material “consists essentially” of LaOX, LiX, and LiBH4, and applicant argues that the presence of additional components in the teachings of the prior art excludes it from being valid. The primary issue examiner sees here is that in the provided formula 1, the molar quantity of “a” can be 0. If a were 0, and LiX were not present, the composition would not “consist essentially” of LaOX, LiX, and LiBH4. Therefore, the exclusion of one of the three primary components is taught in the claims, and thus it is considered that the inclusion of an additional component would also be within the bounds of the claim as currently interpreted. Examiner believes that if the claim were further amended to both alter the range of component “a” and to state that the composition explicitly “consists of” those LaOX, LiX, and LiBH4, that the prior art would likely be overcome and further search and consideration would be required. In order to strengthen the rejection after the amendments and new limitations added by applicant, the claims are now rejected in view of Yamamoto as the primary reference, in view of Cao et Al (Lithium ionic conductivity in LiI–Li2S–La2O2Sm (m=1, 2) composite electrolyte by solid state reaction, Solid State Ionics, Volume 179, Issues 27–32, 2008, Pages 1776-1778,), which teaches LaOI and LiI in a solid electrolyte material, and further in view of Chen in regard to the dependent claims. There is currently not considered to be any allowable subject matter present in the claims. Examiner notes that the combination of specifically LaOI-LiI-LiBH4 without any additional elements, as seen in the examples section, has not been discovered in any single piece of prior art, and if applicant continues to narrow down towards this combination of components and argue the criticality/unexpected results of this specific composition, that this would likely be the most effective way to expedite prosecution.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1-4, 6, 9-14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Specifically, claim 1 has been amended to state that the composition of the solid-state electrolyte “consists essentially” of LaOX, LiX, and LiBH4. However, the claims also states that formula (1) is 1.0LaOX – aLiX – bLiBH4, and that 0 ≤ a ≤ 3.0. In this case, “a” could be 0, and then the composition could not “consist essentially” of those three components. For examination purposes, the claim will be examined under an interpretation of “consists essentially” meaning “comprising,” as otherwise the claim is actively contradicting itself. Claims 2-4, 6, and 9-14 are all rejected under 35 USC 112(b) for depending upon claim 1.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 3-4 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Specifically, claims 3-4 fail to further limit the subject matter from claim 1. Claim 1 teaches that lithium borohydride material is required. Claims 3-4 all claim things that are already required by the presence of lithium borohydride, such as the fact that it is a hydride, the fact that the hydride includes a boron atom, and the hydride needing to include a borohydride compound. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto (JP 2020024881 A) in view of Cao et Al (Lithium ionic conductivity in LiI–Li2S–La2O2Sm (m=1, 2) composite electrolyte by solid state reaction, Solid State Ionics, Volume 179, Issues 27–32, 2008, Pages 1776-1778,)
Regarding claim 1, Yamamoto teaches all of the following elements:
A solid electrolyte material represented by the following formula (1) (“A composite solid electrolyte was produced under the same conditions as in Example 1-1 except that the ratio of 3LiBH4-LiI and Li7-3xLa3Zr2AlxO12 was changed to 50:50 (% by mass).” Yamamoto [30])
1.0LaOX-aLiX-bLiBH4 formula (1), wherein in the formula (1) X is at least one selected from the group consisting of F, Cl, Br, and I, 0 ≤a ≤ 3.0 and 0 < b ≤ 3.0 are satisfied, (“A composite solid electrolyte was produced under the same conditions as in Example 1-1 except that the ratio of 3LiBH4-LiI and Li7-3xLa3Zr2AlxO12 was changed to 50:50 (% by mass).” Yamamoto [30].Yamamoto teaches an electrolyte material which contains a lanthanum oxide material, a lithium halide material, and a lithium borohydride. In this case, the b would be 3, and the a would be 1. )
and the solid electrolyte material consists essentially of LaOX, LiX, and LiBH4. (As described in the above 112(b) rejection, the claim is written in such a way that this must be interpreted as a “comprised” limitation. If the value of “a” were changed and the language were changed to state “consists of” the prior art would likely be overcome.)
Applicant arguments in regard to the previous rejection state that the only reason Yamamoto does not meet the limitations of claim 1 is because the inclusion of additional metal elements of such as Zr and Al brings it outside the scope of amended claim 1. Due to the aforementioned objections to this argument, and the fact that the teachings of claim 1 do not teach a material that “consists essentially” of LaOX, LiX, and LiBH4, examiner finds that Yamamoto still meets all of the requirements of claim 1.
Yamamoto is silent on the explicit presence of LaOX with no further components, and despite this meeting the limitations of amended claim 1, examiner further cites Cao et al, which teaches the presence of LaOI in a solid electrolyte, to further strengthen the rejection.
Cao teaches the presence of LaOX and LiX in the same solid-state electrolyte (“In this paper, a new composite electrolyte was prepared through solid state reaction between Li2S and LaOI.” Cao et al intro paragraph 2 line 6-7, “Solid state reaction between LaOI and Li2S for Li2S/LaOI = 7/3 increases the conductivity at 210 °C in two orders of magnitude (in Table 1). The room temperature conductivity increased by about 50-folds from 7.1 × 10− 8 for Li2S/LaOI = 2/5 to 3.0 × 10− 6 for Li2S/LaOI = 7/3 (Table 1).” Cao et al impedance analysis paragraph 2 lines 7-11, and “A substantial increase in conductivity and no diffraction peaks due to LiI in the composites indicate that lithium-ion conduction proceeds via the amorphous interface phase. In this system, the amorphous LiI is proposed to be responsible for great increase of ionic conductivity.” Cao et al impedance analysis paragraph 2 lines 11-14.)
Cao et al and Yamamoto are considered to be analogous because they are both within the same field of solid-state electrolytes experimenting with the presence of lanthanum oxides and lithium halides. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Yamamoto to experiment with LaOI as a lanthanum containing material in order to potentially gain the ion conductivity benefits as taught by Cao et al. If LiI, LiBH4, and LaOI were included in a solid-state electrolyte together, then all of the limitations of claim 1 would be met.
As described in previous rejection and above, if claim 1 were further limited to contain ONLY LaOX, LiX, and LiBH4, Cao et al would likely be overcome as it also teaches the inclusion of Li2S in the composite.
The combination of materials either in Yamamoto alone or in combination with Cao would meet all of the additional limitations of claims 2-4 without further modification or motivation:
Regarding claim 2, Yamamoto teaches the following elements:
The solid electrolyte material according to claim 1, wherein LiBH4 is a hydride, (LiBH4 is a hydride, and thus its presence in Yamamoto meets this limitation.)
and a ratio of an amount of O to the total amount of X and the hydride is less than 1. (In the composite material of Yamamoto 3LiBH4-LiI-Li7-3xLa3Zr2AlxO12 (There is no definition in claim 2 regarding whether the ratio of the amount of O to the amount of X and hydride is a molar ratio or a weight/mass ratio. For examination purposes, it will be treated as if it is a mass ratio. The mass of the hydride an halide present would be 192.24g/mol (3 x LiBH4 and 1xI in LiI), and the mass of the 12 oxygen present would be 192.00g. Therefore, in the composition of Yamamoto there would be a ratio of O to total amount of X and hydride that is less than 1.)
Regarding claim 3, Yamamoto teaches the following elements:
The solid electrolyte material according to claim 1, wherein LiBH4 is a hydride, and the hydride includes a boron atom. (LiBH4 is a hydride and contains a boron atom, therefore the presence of LiBH4 in Yamamoto meets this limitation.)
Regarding claim 4, Yamamoto teaches the following elements:
The solid electrolyte material according to claim 3, wherein the hydride includes at least one selected from the group consisting of a borohydride compound including BH4- and a carborane. (The hydride of LiBH4 is borohydride, and therefore the presence of LiBH4 in Yamamoto meets this limitation.)
Regarding claim 6, Yamamoto teaches the following elements:
The solid electrolyte material according to claim 1, wherein X includes I. (Yamamoto includes LiI in its formulation, which teaches I as the X, thus meeting all of the limitations of claim 6.)
Regarding claim 13, Yamamoto teaches the following elements:
The solid electrolyte material according to claim 1, wherein in the formula (1), X is I. (“A composite solid electrolyte was produced under the same conditions as in Example 1-1 except that the ratio of 3LiBH4-LiI and Li7-3xLa3Zr2AlxO12 was changed to 50:50 (% by mass).” Yamamoto [30]. Yamamoto teaches a composition in which X is I, thus meeting all of the limitations of claim 13.)
Regarding claim 14, Yamamoto teaches the following elements:
A battery comprising: a positive electrode; a negative electrode; an electrolyte layer disposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode, wherein at least one selected from the group consisting of the positive electrode, the negative electrode, and the electrolyte layer contains the solid electrolyte material according to claim 1. (“the present invention is an all-solid-state lithium-ion battery including a positive electrode layer, a negative electrode layer, and a solid electrolyte layer, and including the composite solid electrolyte according to the embodiment of the present invention in the solid electrolyte layer.” Yamamoto [16]. The solid electrolyte of Yamamoto combined with Cao and used to meet the limitations of claim 1, if included in the solid electrolyte later of Yamamoto as described above, would meet all of the limitations of claim 14.)
Claim(s) 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto (JP 2020024881 A) in view of Cao et Al (Lithium ionic conductivity in LiI–Li2S–La2O2Sm (m=1, 2) composite electrolyte by solid state reaction, Solid State Ionics, Volume 179, Issues 27–32, 2008, Pages 1776-1778,) and further in view of Chen (US 20170162901 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Yamamoto is silent on the following elements:
The solid electrolyte material according to claim 1, wherein in the formula (1), 0 ≤ a ≤ 2.0 and 0 < b ≤ 2.0 are satisfied.
However, Chen teaches all of the elements of claim 9 that are not found in Yamamoto or Nguyen:
The solid electrolyte material according to claim 8, wherein in the formula (1), 0 ≤ a ≤ 2.0 and 0 < b ≤ 2.0 are satisfied. (“As used herein, the phrase “LiBH.sub.4—LiNH.sub.2—LiX,” refers to a tertiary composition that includes LiBH.sub.4, LiNH.sub.2, and LiX, and is described chemically as A.(LiBH.sub.4).B.(LiX).C.(LiNH.sub.2), wherein X is fluorine, bromine, chloride, iodine, or a combination thereof, and wherein 0.1≦A≦3, 0.1≦B≦4, and 0≦C≦9. The relative molar ratio of LiBH.sub.4, LiNH.sub.2, and LiX can vary. Chen [0074].)
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art ranges of ------0.1-3 (borohydride) and 0.1-4 (lithium halide) for the molar ratio of the borohydride component and lithium halide component of a ternary solid electrolyte mixture overlap the claimed range of 0 ≤ a ≤ 2.0 and 0 < b ≤ 2.0, where a is the molar ratio of the lithium hydride and b is the borohydride. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Chen is considered to be analogous to Yamamoto because they are both related to ternary compositions for solid electrolytes that include lithium borohydride and lithium halide. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yamamoto to have different molar ratios between the borohydride and lithium halide components, as this is taught in the art and would be within routine experimentation/optimization to determine the best ratio for overall performance and characteristics.
Since Chen teaches a ratio of 1:1:1 for all three components of the ternary material, or alternatively a ratio where the ratio of a/b are each higher than the other, the additional limitations of claims 10-12 would all be met without requiring any further modification or motivation.
Regarding claim 10, the teachings of Chen combined with the material of Yamamoto would meet all of the following elements:
The solid electrolyte material according to claim 8, wherein in the formula (1), 0.4 ≤ b ≤ 2.0 is satisfied. (“As used herein, the phrase “LiBH.sub.4—LiNH.sub.2—LiX,” refers to a tertiary composition that includes LiBH.sub.4, LiNH.sub.2, and LiX, and is described chemically as A.(LiBH.sub.4).B.(LiX).C.(LiNH.sub.2), wherein X is fluorine, bromine, chloride, iodine, or a combination thereof, and wherein 0.1≦A≦3, 0.1≦B≦4, and 0≦C≦9. The relative molar ratio of LiBH.sub.4, LiNH.sub.2, and LiX can vary. Chen [0074].)
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art ranges of ------0.1-3 (borohydride) and 0.1-4 (lithium halide) for the molar ratio of the borohydride component and lithium halide component of a ternary solid electrolyte mixture encompass the claimed range of 0.4≤ b ≤ 2.0, where b is the molar ratio of borohydride. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 11, the teachings of Chen combined with the material of Yamamoto would meet all of the following elements:
The solid electrolyte material according to claim 8, wherein in the formula (1), 0 ≤ a ≤ 1.2 and 0.8 ≤ b ≤ 2.0 are satisfied. (“As used herein, the phrase “LiBH.sub.4—LiNH.sub.2—LiX,” refers to a tertiary composition that includes LiBH.sub.4, LiNH.sub.2, and LiX, and is described chemically as A.(LiBH.sub.4).B.(LiX).C.(LiNH.sub.2), wherein X is fluorine, bromine, chloride, iodine, or a combination thereof, and wherein 0.1≦A≦3, 0.1≦B≦4, and 0≦C≦9. The relative molar ratio of LiBH.sub.4, LiNH.sub.2, and LiX can vary. Chen [0074].)
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art ranges of ------0.1-3 (borohydride) and 0.1-4 (lithium halide) for the molar ratio of the borohydride component and lithium halide component of a ternary solid electrolyte mixture overlap the claimed range of 0 ≤ a ≤ 1.2 and 0.8 ≤ b ≤ 2.0, where a is the molar ratio of the lithium hydride and b is the borohydride. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 12, the teachings of Chen combined with the material of Yamamoto would meet all of the following elements:
The solid electrolyte material according to claim 8, wherein in formula (1), a < b is satisfied. (“As used herein, the phrase “LiBH.sub.4—LiNH.sub.2—LiX,” refers to a tertiary composition that includes LiBH.sub.4, LiNH.sub.2, and LiX, and is described chemically as A.(LiBH.sub.4).B.(LiX).C.(LiNH.sub.2), wherein X is fluorine, bromine, chloride, iodine, or a combination thereof, and wherein 0.1≦A≦3, 0.1≦B≦4, and 0≦C≦9. The relative molar ratio of LiBH.sub.4, LiNH.sub.2, and LiX can vary. Chen [0074].)
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art ranges of ------0.1-3 (borohydride) and 0.1-4 (lithium halide) for the molar ratio of the borohydride component and lithium halide component of a ternary solid electrolyte mixture overlap the claimed range of a < b, where a is the molar ratio of the lithium hydride and b is the borohydride. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Conclusion
The following references were discovered in an updated search and considered to be relevant, but were not used in rejection:
Brix Ley et al (Inorg. Chem. (2016) 55 (19): 9748–9756.) –teaches the use of lanthanum chloride and lithium borohydride to yield a material with desirable electronic properties.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicants are reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN ELI KASS-MULLET whose telephone number is (571)272-0156. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-6pm except for the first Friday of bi-week.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, NICHOLAS SMITH can be reached at (571) 272-8760. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BENJAMIN ELI KASS-MULLET/Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/NICHOLAS A SMITH/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights